Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a respondent in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order dated June 19, 1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Order No. 12276(W) of 1992 thereby disposing of the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein with a direction that the appellant will consider the question of giving appointment to the available candidates including writ petitioners No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 from 1985 panel of handicapped persons in filling up any vacancy hereafter in any post in any non-works or in any department except in work area. By the said order, a further direction was given to the appellant to treat the existing and future vacancies in Durgapur Steel Plant ("D.S.P.") as reserved category vacancy for handicapped persons and not to fill up those vacancies without offering appointments to the available candidates of 1985 panel of handicapped persons.
(2.) The respondents writ petitioners who were fourteen in number complained in the writ application that they were all physically handicapped persons and their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for consideration for appointment at DSP and after necessary interview the D.S.P. authorities sometime in the year 1985 empanelled them for the purpose of future appointments. In course of exchanges of affidavits it was however detected that out of fourteen petitioners only seven were empanelled under various categories while the remaining seven were not empanelled. Ultimately, only those seven writ petitioners viz. petitioners No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 pressed the said writ application. The grievance of the aforesaid petitioners is that although they were empanelled, none of them were given employment.
(3.) The appellant contested the said writ application and in its affidavit-in opposition the defence taken by the appellant was that the life of the said panel had expired after six months and as such no appointment can be given from a panel which is not alive. There is no dispute that the panel was prepared on March 22, 1985. Thus, according to the appellant on the expiry of September 22, 1985 there was no valid panel.;